About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
't been tested against what hezbollah has been which is a much different store ji. >> that's certainly true. hamas fired i believe 4,000 rockets from gaza in a month. if this really does end in a fight with hezbollah in lebanon, hezbollah allegedly has at least 50,000 rockets, much better rockets, too. >> and iron dome could not handle 50,000? >> no way. no. it will help. i think there are 5 iron dome systems in place active at the moment. their goal is to create 13 iron dome systems. it will help a lot. but hundreds of rockets fired a day. it apt going to do that much. >> does this set back peace though in an odd way? if you can build fortresses for israel, then what is the incentive to do a two state solution? >> one of the issues of iron dome, one of the reasons that part of the military was against the iron dome is it was considered to be a defensive weapon. and israel, the military crowd is an offensive army. so they said we're spending money in the wrong place. we shouldn't be worried about defending. we should be worried about winning by creating attacking weapons. so the releva
of more convoys coming from our shipment of arms and nuclear arsenal, from syria to hezbollah. the question will come, what will happen the day after. they are fears in israel that either hezbollah or an agent of al qaeda will try to confiscate the storage of nuclear, chemical arsenal, in the case of these few hours when the regime actually falls. and in that case, israel is considered to have a ground assault into the specific locations of these bunkers. >> to secure the chemical weapons. >> to secure them. and that might i would say that might come in a contradiction with american interests. that would try to form or to support the rebels, without intervening militarily on the ground. and i think that israel wants to be sure that the united states completely approved the israeli point of view that the first priority would be to prevent either hezbollah or al qaeda forces to get hold of the strategic weapons, strategic weapon are the scud missiles and the chemical arsenal. >> from what i'm hearing from american officials, the u.s. might take that action unilaterally on its ow
and conventional weapons. you have refugee problems on the turkish border. the al qaeda/hezbollah action in syria is very, very concerning to recognize terrorist organizations. this is real trouble real quick. if you want a diplomatic solution -- and i still think there's one possible -- you can't do it if you have no credibility with the opposition and no credibility with our arab league partners. and right now we find ourselves in that spot. so you have to build that credibility. this is not boots on the ground, by the way. i want to make that very clear, we don't need 101st airborne division showing up. >> when you said boots on the groupd, am i wrong? i thought you said over the weekend that you joined in with senator mccain and senator levin, and you want some kind of special forces to go in with syria to identify, locate, or somehow get the chemical weapons back. hence i call that boots on the ground. >> i think it's really important to be clear about what we're trying to do here. we have small groups, special capability forces that we can add to the mix here that does t doesn't -- is not
in the hands of terrorists or anti israeli extremists like hezbollah. mr. obama is stressing he is skeptical that they used chemical weapons and cautioned that the u.s. is still investigating claims that syrian president use them, the president a bushel when israeli reporter suggested that the u.s. has beenitting on its hands. >> is incorrect for you to say that we have been nothing. we have helped to mobilize the isolation of the regime internationally. we have supported and rognized the opposition. >> except the president for said that in 85 days were numbered 19 days ago. last summer he warned of potential u.s. force. >> are red line for us is, we stt seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. that would cnge my calculus. >> reporter: back in washington a top republican charge the administration's policy has been addressed. >> the obama administration saw a reformer. on the revolt started they backed u.n. diplomacy. then they bet on moscow to play a constructive role. predictably, none of this has worked. >> reporter: here in israel today netanyahu's new int
in harm's way in syria, because it is a syria war. it's hezbollah versus hamas. neither of which are friendly to us. >> again, richard, saying we don't understand the culture, when you look back ten years ago tonight, was we went into this, look at the costs. $1.7 trillion. >> right. >> benefits owed to war veterans, $490 billion. i mean, how can republicans who put this war on a credit card now say we need to tighten our belt and cut programs for the poor and working class? >> that's a great point. you know, the bush administration fired the economic adviser who said that the iraq war would cost about $100 billion. because they thought it was too much. they got it wrong about iraq. they also said, by the way, the iraq that had been invaded by america would become an ally against iran. they got that wrong, too. it's not just about the cost. strategic judgments were wrong. when dick cheney says it's more important to be successful than to be liked, he wasn't successful. his premise failed. from the beginning it failed. in the middle it failed and in the end. >> he certainly wasn't
, chemical weapons and others, will fall into the hands of extremist groups like hezbollah or al qaeda. imagine if those sort of hard-line terrorist groups were to get their hands on chemical weapons. >> well, do you feel, though, at this point, that they have been used based on what we're hearing yesterday and does your intelligence tell you that they are now in play? >> we're being cautious like the u.s. government. we haven't addressed that issue publicly yet. we might soon. but the concern has been there for a very long time. you have a regime that is falling apart. a brutal regime which is apparently on its last leg, that is fighting for its life. you have on the ground in syria, on the side supporting assad you have groups like the iranian revolutionary guard on the ground with the assad regime. you have lebanese hezbollah on the ground with the assad regime. on the opposition side, you've got some actors that are also very problematic groups affiliated with al qaeda. and as we see syria fragment if we're going to see the linkup between these sort of extremist groups and weapons
conventional weapons. you have these al qaeda groups in trying to get their hands on them. hezbollah trying to get their hands on them. this is a powder keg. it makes what happened in libya with their weapons that spread across the northern africa and the maghreb, in fact i argue that mali was the first victim of weapons that escape out of that, these weapons make libya looks like antique gun show. heather: general jack keanes retired, former four-star general and vice chief of staff of the army, and fox military analyst joins us with more. high probability you heard him say there. do you think chemical weapons are being used in syria by the assad regime or by rebel groups? what do you think? >> i don't know but chairman rogers, highly respected chairman of the intelligence committee has access to information that very select leaders have in this country. so when he is drawing a conclusion it is likely it is probable, i think we have to take him at his word. i believe also before our government would take any action, they would have to actually confirm that chemical weapons were used. heath
from outside from iran on -- and hezbollah on one side and from saudi arabia, qatar and other states on the other. if there's any hope of diffusing the conflict, one way is going to have to deal with the issues of iranian support. iran is deeply concerned because syria is the major foothold in the arab world. there's a long standing syria through the decline or democrat myself of the assad regime, which i think is inevitable, will be a serious blow to iran. >> so if you have washington, sir, on one side of the scale and tehran on the other, who does baghdad more closely align with? >> well, our hope is, of course, that it will be a truly democratic regime which will be primarily loyal to the interests of the people in iraq and that their views will be consistent with others in supporting and strengthening democratic institutions. but as with many of the other countries in the middle east, there are a whole series of conflicting interests there and it will play out over a long period of time. but our interest is in democratic institutions, democratic societies who will serve their peo
consequences and fear of spilling out and hezbollah looms large. >> wish we had more historical depth how we look at this. this is the third arab state to be devastated by a civil war. without pointing fingers of blame, lebanon for 15 years was devastated by civil war. foreign armies, foreign intelligence services. after the u.s. invasion in 2003 iraq went through a different but similar process. >> let's point fingers, please. >> in case of iraq we can point finger at the bush administration, it's very clear. it's not just displacement of millions of people. it's not just people being slaughtered which is happening in syria. it's the deconstruction of stooss of state, the idea of a state of law, all -- >> the worst elements of society. >> exactly. giving free rein to people whose objectives and aims and means are horrific as far as, including most syrians are concerned or most iraqis and lebanese were concerned and stopping this as quickly as possible is something we should be concerned about. as this continues, the radicalization and extremism gets worse. >> the ripple effect, the reason w
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9